Planning Board
August 16, 2011
Approved September 20, 2011
Members Present: Tom Vannatta, Chair; Ron Williams, Vice-Chair; Bill Weiler, Bruce Healey, Travis Dezotell, Russell Smith, Members; Deane Geddes, Alison Kinsman, Alternates; Rachel Ruppel, Advisor.
Mr. Vannatta called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Minutes
The Board reviewed the minutes of July 19, 2011and made corrections. Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Mr. Healey seconded the motion. All in favor.
Hearing Procedures
Mr. Vannatta reviewed with the Board hearing processes and Site Plan Review regulations and procedures recommended by town counsel which included the following:
- Article VII Procedure When Special Exception or Variance Approval by the Zoning Board of Adjustment is Required, paragraph 7.1. Mr. Vannatta noted that RSA 676:4, Board’s Procedures on Plats, section 1 (e), indicates that the Board may not delay an application if permits and/or variances are not yet completed.
- Article XI Waiver of Requirements, paragraph 11.1. If the Board grants waivers at a preliminary hearing, those waivers may carry over into the final hearing only if the Board reaffirms all the waivers. The reaffirmation may be done in a single block vote that covers all of the waivers under consideration. All waivers must be subject to the criteria as outlined in RSA 674:44.
- Article X Application Requirements, paragraph 10.12.2 pertaining to the submission of sign off sheets from the Selectmen, police and fire department, highway department, Conservation Commission, and others required by the Board. If a sign off sheet is not submitted in time for the hearing, the applicant may contact the department head or group chair directly requesting submission. Failing that, it is the Board’s responsibility to request the missing sign-off sheets prior to voting on the site plan review or sub division application.
- Granting with Conditions. When granting an application with conditions, a time limit of 60 to 90 days is reasonable to ensure the conditions are met. Additionally, the plat should not be signed by the Board until all the conditions are met.
Mr. Weiler questioned whether the time limit placed on conditions applies to conditions precedent or to conditions subsequent.
Mr. Vannatta said the above items will be discussed further at the Board’s September 6, 2011 work session meeting.
Conceptual- Site Plan Review - Hayley Cummings 456-2064. Wants to open a tanning salon at 885 Route 103, Newbury.
The Board introduced themselves and Mr. Vannatta reviewed the procedure involved in a conceptual presentation.
Ms. Cummings said she wants to open a tanning salon at 885 Route 103, a three-bedroom ranch home with a two bay garage that has been commercially zoned in the past. There will be three pieces of equipment in each room along with waiting areas. She said she has conducted market research within 30 miles of this location to determine consumer interest. She said this would be a full time business that operates about 65 hours weekly. There would not be more than six cars at a time at the location. She offered copies of the market research and a business plan.
Mr. Weiler noted that the location was within the business district and recommended that Ms. Cummings review the site plan review regulations. Mr. Healey asked about the proposed signage. Ms. Cummings said she plans to review the zoning ordinance regarding same but is thinking about a free standing sign.
Mr. Geddes asked about external lighting. Ms. Cummings said there are two outside lights on the building and a light on the garage.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the building is also a residence. Ms. Cummings said no, just business.
Ms. Ruppel reviewed the on-site parking requirements for retail service (Appendix A, Site Plan Review regulations) and recommended that Ms. Cummings review that section. Mr. Weiler noted that the regulations suggest a minimum number of spaces and that if Ms. Cummings needs six parking spaces, she should include the six in her application.
Mr. Vannatta suggested that Ms. Ruppel would be available for guidance regarding Ms. Cummings’ application prior to the Board’s September 6, 2011 work session meeting if the latter needs it.
Planning Board Rules of Procedures
Mr. Vannatta noted that a single sheet titled ‘Order of Business for Public Hearings Related to the Review of Subdivisions and Site Plans” had been placed throughout the seating area of the meeting room. He reviewed with the public the procedures involved for a hearing on a final application and emphasized the limitations placed on the Board during such hearings.
CASE: Case 2011-008: Final Hearing Major Subdivision- Peter Moore/agent: Clayton Platt. 863-0981. South Road. Map/Lot 034-092-064.
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Board will receive submission of an application for a Final Hearing for a Major Subdivision from Peter Moore, for property located on South Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 034-092-064 on Tuesday, August 16, 2011, at 7:15 pm in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
Mr. Healey and Ms. Kinsman recused themselves to the audience for this hearing because they are abutters. Mr. Vannatta appointed Mr. Geddes as a voting member for this hearing.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. Mr. Vannatta noted that if the Board grants the requested waivers then the application could be considered complete, dependent on the submission of the sign-off sheets from the Fire Chief and the Conservation Commission.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed RSA 674:44 Site Plan Review Regulations, III. (e) and read the following into the record: “The basis for any waiver granted by the planning board shall be recorded in the minutes of the board. The planning board may only grant a waiver if the board finds, by majority vote, that: (1) Strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of the regulations; or (2) Specific circumstances relative to the site plan, or conditions of the land in such site plan, indicate that the waiver will properly carry out the spirit and intent of the regulations.”
Waiver Requests
Mr. Clayton Platt, agent, presented the following waiver requests under Section IX – Major Subdivisions – Application Submittal Requirements:
- Paragraphs 9.4.2, 9.4.4 and 9.4.7 (under Subdivision Plan): requesting to waive the requirements because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Platt said these requirements would make the project not feasible. The three lots are topographically disconnected from the majority of the 500 plus acres and it would cost Peter Moore about $75,000 to comply with the requirements.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraphs 9.4.2, 9.4.4 and 9.4.7 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Weiler, Mr.Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.5 Topographic Map: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 9.5 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.7 Utilities and Fire Protection Plan Map: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the applicant was proposing construction at this time. Mr. Platt said no.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 9.7 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta, Mr. Weiler
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.9 Erosion and Sediment Control Report and Plan: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Platt said each future homeowner will do their own development and at this time there is no way to know what the homeowner will propose regarding drainage and erosion.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 9.9 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr.Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.10 Drainage Plan Map and Paragraph 9.11 Drainage and Hydrology Report: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Platt said there will be very limited development on a very large private property. Mr. Williams said there is no real infrastructure contemplated at this time and there is no disturbance to the land at this time.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraphs 9.10 and 9.11 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Smith seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.12 Infrastructure Impact Report: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Platt said there is no infrastructure plan as part of the proposal.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 9.12 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
- Paragraph 9.13 Environmental Impact Report: requesting to waive the requirement because the applicant is proposing three lots on a 28 acre+/- part of the larger Moore property and it would be difficult to produce the detailed engineering reports when it is unknown what each future landowner is planning to build.
Mr. Williams noted that this is only a sub division and there is no construction at this time, adding that will be addressed by a building permit.
There being no further discussion, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion.
Mr. Williams made a motion to grant a waiver to Paragraph 9.13 because of RSA 674:44 III.(e)(2). Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the application as complete.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call Vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr.Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta.
Opposed: None.
Mr. Platt presented to the Board. He said the three lots are part of an existing tree farm with access off Morse Lane. He said there will be one 12-acre lot, one three-acre lot and one 13-acre lot. He said the remaining 571 acres will remain a tree farm. He referred to plans presented, noting the location of steep slopes, wetlands, septic and road access.
Mr. Vannatta asked about future plans for the remaining acreage. Mr. Moore said it is a family tree farm and sub dividing the three lots and selling them will help the Moores afford to keep the farm. He said he has 10 acres out of current use off of Morse Lane.
Mr. Vannatta noted that the Road Agent requested that driveways must be shown on the plans and physically shown on the lots. Mr. Weiler said the plans show curb cuts. Mr. Williams said the driveways are shown on the current plans.
Mr. Weiler referred to Paragraph 10.11 Driveway of the subdivision regulations noting that there is no regulation requiring driveways must be shown on the plan.
Ms. Ruppel said the application shows driveway locations and clarifies where the driveways may be located. She added that the Board must decide if that is adequate.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Albert Bachelder, Newbury resident, said he didn’t see any access to the back lot from the road. Mr. Platt said the overview sheet shows access off of Morse Lane. Mr. Bachelder said the subdivision runs along the railroad (RR) track and requested that the RR be left open for use by the area snowmobilers and cross country skiers.
Michael Couitt, 217 South Road, Newbury, said he owns the RR tracks in question and plans to keep them open for public use.
There being no further comments from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Moore said he chose to eliminate access to the larger parcel from town roads because it preserves the integrity of the large parcel and minimizes forest fragmentation.
There being no further discussion from the Board, Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to vote.
Mr. Weiler made a motion to approve the application with the condition that sign-off sheets from the Fire Chief and the Conservation Commission are submitted. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Geddes, Mr. Smith, Mr.Williams, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta.
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta informed the applicant that he or any party directly affected by this decision may appeal to the proper Board within thirty (30) days of this decision.
Mr. Vannatta called for a break at 8:26 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 8:44 p.m.
CASE: Case 2011-003: Final Hearing/Site Plan Review- Davis Revocable Trust/ Agent: Community Action Program, Ralph Littlefield 225-3295. Newbury Heights Road. Map/Lot 020-072-043 & 020-223-195
Ms. Kinsman recused herself to the audience.
Ms. Ruppel reviewed the hand-out sheet given to the audience, Order of Business for Public Hearings Related to the Review of Subdivision and Site Plans.
Mr. Vannatta corrected erroneous information published in a local publication which stated that tonight’s hearing would determine the acceptance or denial of this application.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the Planning Board’s scope of responsibilities as outlined in the RSAs and noted that the Planning Board is not permitted, within its venue, to legislate social or private agencies.
Mr. Vannatta suggested a time limit of 10:30 p.m. for this hearing. The Board concurred.
You are hereby notified that the Planning Board will receive submission of an
Application for a Final Site Plan Review from Community Action Program on behalf of Clark & Evelyn Davis Revocable Trust, for property located on Newbury Heights Road, Newbury, NH, Tax Map 020-072-043 & 020-223-195 on Tuesday, August 16, 2011, at 8:00 p.m. in the Town Office Building at 937 Route 103 in Newbury, NH. If the application is accepted as complete, a public hearing on the application will commence at the same meeting.
The Board reviewed the application for completeness. Mr. Vannatta noted that the sign-off sheet from the Conservation Commission was not in the application. Also missing was approval from various state agencies/departments.
Mr. Vannatta said the waivers granted on March 15, 2011 during the preliminary site plan review must be re-affirmed to satisfy this application to be considered complete. He added that the Board may re-affirm the waivers as one block instead of individually. The waivers include 10.7, 10.7.7, 10.7.9, 10.7.10, 10.7.11, 12.6 and 12.8.8 of the Site Plan Review regulations.
Mr. Williams made a motion to re-affirm the waivers granted on March 15, 2011. Mr. Weiler seconded the motion.Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to accept the application as complete.
Mr. Healey made a motion to accept the application as complete. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. Mr. Vannatta called for a Roll Call vote.
In Favor: Mr. Healey, Mr. Dezotell, Mr. Weiler, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Vannatta
Opposed: None.
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the time limits for the application review process, noting that there is a 65 day period in which to render a decision. He added that a 30-day extension may be permitted if the applicant agrees to waive the 65-day rule. Kenneth Nielsen, attorney and agent for the applicant, agreed, waiving the right to the 65-day rule. Mr. Vannatta noted that the Board now has 95 days in which to render a decision.
Mr. Nielsen presented to the Board, noting that he is the attorney representing the Community Action Program (CAP) of Merrimack-Belknap Counties, Inc. He said the CAP agency is a non-profit organization that started in the late 1960s and provides 71 different programs to low income residents in both counties. He noted that this project is the seventh low income elderly housing project that CAP has been involved in. He said there have been four such projects developed in Merrimack County and two in Belknap County. He said CAP responded to a request to apply to HUD for this project to be located in Newbury. There is a $5.1 million capital advance from HUD for this project which he described as a 34-unit elderly subsidized housing project for residents who are 62 years old or older and said there could be a preference
for Newbury residents. Tenants will pay 30% of their income in rent. Mr. Nielsen added that there is a $275,000 Community Development Block Grant for road improvements to Newbury Heights Road. He said funding was secured in 2008, noting an initial site was secured at that time but had to be abandoned because of wetland issues.
Mr. Nielsen said CAP has been meeting with the Planning Board for over a year, first in a preliminary application when five or six buildings were being considered, disturbing about eight acres of an over 28 acre property. He said the applicant has met with the abutters, the Lake Sunapee Protective Association (LSPA), the Selectmen and other groups to discuss concerns and thoughts about this project. He said concern for the amount of disturbance to the land resulted in a redesign of the project to a single building that disturbs less than four acres on the property.
Mr. Nielsen referred to a map of the project depicting Newbury Heights Road and described the road as a dead end road and 13 feet at its narrowest point. He said the proposed project would widen the road, mitigate some of the bumps and improve the drainage. He added that the improvements will benefit the Town and the residents on the road. He described the plans for enlarging the existing cul de sac.
Mr. Nielsen described the individual units as being 580 to 600 square feet in size, typically one bedroom and designed for independent living. Additionally, the two-story building will contain a laundry room, offices and a community room. He said the building will be fully sprinklered and have fire alarms and said geo thermal is being considered to provide heat and cooling. He said four acres or less will be developed with the remaining acreage left in its natural state. He added that there are a couple of archeologically sensitive areas that will be put into easements and will not be disturbed.
Mr. Nielsen noted that two variances were granted from the zoning board for frontage and density. The proposed project is located near town services and has a single access only from Newbury Heights Road. He noted that construction would begin in spring 2012.
Mr. Nielsen said CAP has met with the Greenway and the Planning Board regarding using the old railroad bed as a pedestrian path.
Mr. Vannatta said the RR bed as a possible pedestrian path is not part of this application and requested that Mr. Nielsen cease all discussion of same. Mr. Nielsen agreed.
Mr. Nielsen discussed the previously submitted traffic study noting that there will not be many cars traveling Newbury Heights Road as a result of this project. He said CAP provides a senior bus for those residents without cars or who prefer not to drive. He discussed the proposed parking as more than adequate and noted that the project incorporates the requested fire department emergency access road around the building.
Mr. Nielsen described the proposed detention ponds and rain gardens and noted that they will protect Lake Sunapee from any negative impact. He described in general terms the drainage plans on and off site and added that all of the comments made by the Board’s independent engineering consultant, Lou Caron, have been incorporated.
Mr. Nielsen described in general terms the projected usage level of water and the size of the proposed well(s) and added that the anticipated water usage shouldn’t adversely affect the abutters.
Mr. Healey asked who invited CAP to consider Newbury as a location for this project. Mr. Nielsen said the CAP program was approached by Dave Kinsman who offered a site in town and invited CAP to consider the property. CAP met with the Selectmen and other groups in Town.
Mr. Healey asked if the Selectmen were in favor of the project at that time. Mr. Nielsen said yes. Mr. Healey asked if it was just the Kinsmans who brought CAP to Newbury. Michael Coleman, housing director, CAP Belknap-Merrimack Counties Inc., said that it was his understanding that the need was originally presented by Mr. Kinsman to Dennis Pavlicek, town administrator, who then contacted CAP. The Selectmen were brought into the discussion and it was collectively determined that there would be a need for this kind of housing in Newbury. Mr. Nielsen added that the application submitted to HUD included the census data to support the need along with letters of support from area community organizations.
Mr. Healey asked if additional variances are required for this application. Mr. Nielsen said the original need for a variance for steep slopes has been reconsidered and it is now believed a variance is no longer needed. The stream crossings will require a conditional use permit which was included in this application.
Mr. Vannatta suggested hiring a third party surveyor to confirm the assumption regarding steep slopes. He added that the conditional use permit for wetlands crossing was omitted in the public notice advertisement and will be re-noticed and heard at the September 20, 2011 meeting.
Dave Eckman, Eckman Engineering, LLC, noted that all the steep slope information was sent to Mr. Caron for his review.
Mr. Healey asked what services HUD requires for a project like this one. Mr. Nielsen said HUD requires that the project location is close to town services – in this case, the post office, library, town office, and two restaurants. Mr. Healey asked if required services also included drug stores, grocery stores and medical facilities. Mr. Nielsen said that HUD requires that such services are no more than a mile away but makes allowances for rural areas.
Mr. Vannatta asked if the off-site improvements proposed to Newbury Heights Road exceed the allotted $275,000 grant will CAP pay for the overage. Mr. Nielsen said CAP is committed to paying for the road improvements and will absorb any additional costs if they are incurred.
Mr. Eckman described the proposed drainage plans for the project. He said he is working with DES regarding alteration of terrain and the required protection of water quality. He said the clean water will be diverted around the project instead of running right through it. He reviewed the project’s detention ponds and how all the so-called dirty water will be directed to the rain gardens and through porous concrete and end up in the detention ponds. He described how ground infiltration systems will be used around the building roofline. He described the project as being quite small in the 208 acre surrounding watershed. He noted that a lot of the water comes from Mount Sunapee and moves through open terrain which will always remain undeveloped.
Mr. Vannatta noted that all of Mr. Eckman’s suggestions require an ongoing maintenance plan that runs with the lifespan of the project. Mr. Eckman said the state requires a comprehensive maintenance plan which is part of the new DES regulations.
Ms. Ruppel referred to the extensive amount of infiltration on site and asked if a subsurface permit is required. Mr. Eckman said that the plan calls for treating the water first before returning it to the ground and therefore no permit is required.
Mr. Eckman said discussion regarding drainage for Newbury Heights Road will be covered at the September 20, 2011 meeting.
Gary Spaulding, G.R. Spaulding Design Consultants, LLC, discussed the onsite septic system and noted the location of the two proposed leach fields and septic tanks. He referred to the pipe and stone design for leach fields which fall under the state standards. He said plans are to use a pretreatment aerobic system because this is in a sensitive area. Mr. Spaulding said Clean Solution is the proposed pretreatment system but he said he can’t guarantee that it will be used.
Ms. Ruppel asked about the maintenance required for a pretreatment system. Mr. Spaulding said the property owner will have to sign a maintenance agreement and that inspection occurs within six months and then annually after that. He noted that there are 25 to 30 systems around Lake Sunapee that use the Clean Solution system.
Mr. Healey questioned the proposed closed loop thermal heating system and its proximity to septic systems. Mr. Spaulding said there are no setback requirements pertaining to locating a closed loop thermal heating system near a septic system.
Mr. Healey asked about the size of the proposed wells. Mr. Eckman said there will be five to six small wells.
Mr. Healey noted that the Board is relying on the state oversight process regarding the proposed septic system in this development to protect the Town. Ms. Ruppel agreed. Mr. Spaulding said that is the same process used in any other development for septic systems.
There was discussion concerning the formation of the advisory board for this project, Newbury Elderly Housing Inc., and the timing involved in handing over the ownership from CAP/HUD to the advisory board.
Mr. Vannatta requested that at the September 20, 2011 meeting the applicant be prepared to make multiple presentations on this project that are detailed and thorough.
There was discussion about payment in lieu of taxes for this project. Mr. Nielsen estimated that this project would pay $20,000 to $25,000 annually as payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Healey noted that the law indicates that there is a mutual agreement reached between parties yet the applicant indicated that that clause is not usually used.
There was further discussion about payment in lieu of taxes. Mr. Vannatta said the topic is not within the Board’s purview and that it is the Selectmen’s responsibility to handle.
Mr. Dezotell requested that the applicant resubmit a wildlife report regarding this site.
Mr. Vannatta noted that 14 pages of petitions were received containing 123 signatures. Additionally, written letters were received from the following individuals:
- Edwin J. Rehor, Jr.
- Cynthia J. Trudeau
- Bud & Sue Hogan
- William Rodney Torbet
- Audree Byrnes
- Elliott G. Hansen, Jr.
(Note: The complete contents of the submitted letters/emails are contained in the Project Book and the Planning Board final minutes binder at the Town Office and are available for review.)
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the August 5, 2011 letter sent to the Selectmen, Police Chief, Fire Chief, Road Agent, and Conservation Commission requesting a review of the application and submission of sign off sheets. (Attached)
Mr. Vannatta reviewed the August 16, 2011 letter from Robert Wood, associate director and watershed steward, LSPA, clarifying miscommunication and/or misinterpretation of information offered by LSPA to CAP regarding this project. (Attached)
June Fichter, executive director, LSPA, stated that LSPA specifically suggested a minimalization of impact regarding this project and referred to paragraph #3 of the attached letter listing the suggestions made to CAP which included:
- Decreasing the number of planned units
- Decreasing the building footprint size
- Avoiding steep slope development
- Decreasing natural vegetation and soil disturbance
- Leaving more wetland buffer
- Decreasing number of separate septic systems
- Decreasing pavement area
- Decreasing planned lawn area.
Katherine Holmes, chair, Newbury Conservation Commission, referred the Board to the Townwide Conservation Plan, March 2008, and the Addendum to the Natural Resource Inventory (2001), July 2007, noting that the proposed CAP/HUD project is located on property that has been designated as a critical wildlife habitat. Ms. Holmes encouraged the Board to review the aforementioned reports, along with Article VIII (Wetlands Conservation Overlay District) of the town ordinance. She noted that the Commission’s concerns include the impact this project will have on the watershed, the wildlife and the wetlands.
There being no further questions from the Board, Mr. Vannatta opened the public portion of the meeting.
Carol Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, said the abutters were never contacted by CAP and that Mr. Nielsen’s statement that abutters were contacted was false.
There was discussion about the various communication methods used by the applicant prior to the preliminary review process.
Ed Rehor, 47 Newbury Heights Road, presented a petition containing 77 signatures of Newbury property owners against this project. He asked that the Board examine the needs of the elderly in Newbury. Mr. Vannatta said determining “need” is not within the purview of the Board’s responsibilities. Mr. Rehor asked if a wetland permit has been applied for and if there are state funds allotted for highway maintenance. Mr. Vannatta said the state does not pay for maintenance of town roads.
Daryl Mooney, 26 Lakeview Drive, asked about the two variances granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA). Mr. Vannatta said the variances were granted in January 2011 and they were for frontage and density and added that there is a time limit of one year on both.
Charles Davis, a Newbury resident and architect, requested that the applicant present the application using one presenter instead of several in order to present the project as a complete picture.
Barbara Lawnicki, 15 Newbury Heights Road, said the applicant did not provide any notification to the abutters about an informational meeting prior to the preliminary review process. She said the original application called for 17 units not 34. Mr. Nielsen said the additional 17 units were picked up from another community and combined with Newbury’s allotment. He added that 34 units is necessary to make the project economically feasible.
Steven Spaulding, a Newbury resident, asked who will manage this project after it is built. Mr. Nielsen said CAP will manage it using HUD rules. The property owner [Newbury Elderly Housing Inc.] will be responsible for all the property maintenance and all repairs.
Ken Dustin, a Newbury resident, asked if there will be sidewalks built on Newbury Height Road to ensure safe walking to the town center by the project residents. Mr. Vannatta said there are no sidewalks included in this application.
There being no further questions from the public, Mr. Vannatta closed the public portion of the meeting.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to authorize rehiring Lou Caron, consulting engineer, to review the final application.
Mr. Williams made a motion to rehire Lou Caron, consulting engineer for the purpose of continued review of this application. Mr. Dezotell seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Vannatta asked the Board if a third party consulting surveyor should be considered to review the site plan survey in regards to steep slopes. Mr. Weiler said Mr. Caron is qualified to review that aspect of the plan. The Board agreed.
Mr. Vannatta called for a motion to continue the hearing.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to continue the hearing until September 20, 2011 at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. All in favor.
Mr. Dezotell made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Smith seconded the motion. All in favor.
Meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Meg Whittemore
Recording Secretary
| 
